Film_Fatale
-
Posts
15,982 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Film_Fatale
-
-
If TCM is addictive... where are the support groups?
-
I really hope I'll enjoy it when I get the DVD in the mail. B-)
-
> {quote:title=mickeeteeze wrote:}{quote}
> OK, FF. And like I said, I really don't care, you know. I'm just letting you both know how it appears.
> Peace.
I understand that, mickeeteeze. But, let's keep in mind many other people on the boards have offered CK constructive criticism for some 6 months now. And as hard as it is for me to believe that someone could really need to be told something over and over by many people for 6 months before it starts to sink in - I'm still trying to extend CK the benefit of the doubt. It's just that I don't know of any person who is in their 30's who actually behaves like that.
But, if things get better, then everything else could be forgotten I guess.
-
I don't really always agree with the TCM choices for "The Essentials" - but tbh I agree more often than not. You can't please everybody. We should also keep in mind it's a highly promoted special showtime that is at least partly designed to try to attract new viewers to TCM, so you'll always get a few movies that classic film buffs have seen maybe dozens of times.
-
The situation may have improved slightly in the last year or so, now that Paramount is at least licensing movies to Criterion and Legend Films. Criterion can also license from Universal the Paramount titles that Paramount sold to MCA. But so much more needs to be done!
-
> {quote:title=astairrogers wrote:}{quote}
> I agree - I enjoy Ben. He has a good movie pedigree (his uncle and his grandfather)- and I really like his wit and caustic comments.
At this point, I'd say those caustic comments are an acquired taste. Well, they are for me. It is going to be interesting to see if he is asked to tone it down a bit now that he's going to be part of the team that replaces Ebert & Roeper.
-
> {quote:title=decotodd wrote:}{quote}
> As noted below, this remake has been touted in various stages for at least a decade. If I were to gamble, I'd bet this never sees the light of day...
And just how much might you want to wager?
-
> {quote:title=mickeeteeze wrote:}{quote}
> Do You's understand? It really doesn't matter who is right or wrong, this fight is making the two of you look silly.
> Believe it or not, I'm just trying to help.
> Good Luck!
Look, I don't doubt your good intentions. But I honestly think that if you'd actually read what I just posted in the previous post, you'd realize I wasn't actually attacking CK.
Sure, he can still be pretty irritating sometimes. And yet I'm trying to understand the kid. Honestly, I am.
-
You know, it's funny. When the OP started this thread, the username "Celluloid Kid" probably didn't register at all with me. I don't recall things get really annoying until other people in the DVD forums started asking him (very nicely) to try to not take over the whole board by starting dozens of new threads every single day.
In all honesty, I think things may have gotten better, but only because looking at the number of threads CK used to start six months ago or so would appear to suggest someone trying to get his name into the Guinness Book of Records.
Contrary to what CK has posted over and over again, there is no "hate" here or anything even remotely like it. It's just that it can be pretty frustrating (for me and I imagine for others) to see many longtime members of the TCM boards repeatedly making polite requests to CK for -- what is now? SIX months? -- and finding that time and time again he just stonewalled when anyone tried to make any kind of constructive criticism.
CK, if you read this, I would have a lot more respect for you if you didn't respond to these kinds of constructive criticisms and polite requests (by many of the TCM posters) with stonewalling and accusing people of being "nasty" or with your constant stonewalling -- and much less with that ill-chosen quote from *The Women* with which you apparently wanted to suggest that women who post here belong in the kennel.
Until I read this thread, I had no idea that your mother had passed away. (And I didn't read it until today). I am very, very sorry for your mom's passing.
I also sincerely hope that you will try just a wee bit harder why some of the things you have done on the boards are, well, rather annoying. It's not just me who has felt that way. Honestly, I hope the day will come when nobody here remembers why you were so darn annoying during your first months on the boards.
Peace,
FF
-
Um... *The Wizard of Oz*, *Singin' in the Rain*, any of the *That's Entertainment!* films, *Lady and the Tramp* or *101 Dalmatians*. B-)
-
> {quote:title=marcco44 wrote:}{quote}
> also on my list.....gigi & an american in paris, the picture of dorian gray, the 3 stooges vol.3, and that new astaire book by joseph epstein....... i'd better start looking for a THIRD job!!
If you have a third job, will you still have time left to watch the movies?
-
I'm under the impression the TCM programmers really seem to listen to the winners of the programming challenge. But maybe one of the winners could share their experiences?
-
It's a bit hard to choose between *Casablanca* and *Double Indemnity*. And for runner-up, it's a tie between *Sullivan's Travels* and *Out of the Past*
-
So, anyone been watching FMC lately?
Just curious, because I recorded *Sentimental Journey* earlier today. Figured any movie with John Payne and Maureen O'Hara is worth watching
-
> {quote:title=shearerchic04 wrote:}{quote}
> Started by moi.
Thank you for sharing it with us!
-
Looks like TCM thought enough of the movie to dedicate it an article:
http://www.tcm.com/movienews/index/?cid=205796
It's coming out on DVD this coming Tuesday and I look forward to watching it... probably more so than any possible remake that Tarantino may or may not decide to make!
-
I have a hunch Fred is going to be watching *Wings* tonite...
-
> {quote:title=Bargar wrote:}{quote}
> Tough choice is right!
>
> 1. Fantasia
> 2. Beauty & the Beast
> 3. Snow White
*Beauty and the Beast* was actually released in the early 90's. Not that it isn't a delightful movie, of course! :x
-
Something to look forward tomorrow (Monday):
*Meet Me In St. Louis (1944)*
Young love and childish fears highlight a year in the life of a turn-of-the-century family.
Cast: Judy Garland, Margaret O'Brien, Mary Astor. Dir: Vincente Minnelli. C-113 mins, TV-G
-
Thanks for that recommendation, CineMaven.
-
> {quote:title=sweetsmellofsuccess wrote:}{quote}
> The only one I haven't seen is Western Union. The others are first-rate.
>
I hope you got a chance to watch that. I still think it's fairly rare for Fox movies to show up on the TCM schedule.
-
> {quote:title=MissGoddess wrote:}{quote}
> Ford wouldn't have had it any other way.
Amen to that! B-)
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}
> *Wings* coming up at 9 Pacific, 10 Mountain, 11 Central, 12 midnight Eastern time.
>
> *TONIGHT* (Sunday) at MIDNIGHT Eastern time:
>
> *Wings* (1927)
>
> In this silent film, romantic rivals fly against the enemy in World War I.
> Cast: Richard Arlen, Charles "Buddy" Rogers, Clara Bow. Dir: William A. Wellman. BW-139 mins, TV-PG
Excellent movie, Fred! And since we still have to wait for Paramount to even consider a DVD release...
-
Just thought it was funny that Leonard Maltin thought of some of us specifically in the introduction to the 2009 edition of his movie guide... but mostly to plug his other book (the Classic Movie Guide)
Says Maltin...
"If you love old movies and keep Turner Classic Movies on 24/7, I encourage you to consult that companion volume to find films we've had to drop from our bulging annual."
To the irritating celluloid kid
in Hot Topics
Posted
> {quote:title=hlywdkjk wrote:}{quote}
> *"...you'd realize I wasn't actually attacking CK."* - FilmFatale
>
> But you just had to drag out a seven-month old thread full of attacks on him to post your message. Honestly!
>
> Right...
>
> Kyle In Hollywood
Kyle, I thought you said you weren't going to take sides here.
Yes, what I posted on this thread was not attacking CK in any way, it was actually a message to try to (hopefully) patch things up. I'm glad you came in here to get folks even more riled up, just when I'm trying to wave a white flag.
As for why I posted it in this particular thread, I've just been going back over several months' worth of threads, and it just struck me that I wasn't the only one who had found CK's posting habits a bit annoying. (And others tried to point this out to him more than SIX MONTHS AGO).
Yes, I can recognize that he's been annoying in the opinion of many people and AT THE SAME time hope that he realizes what is it about his habits that has annoyed others, so that he can participate in the TCM boards in a more constructive way.
Honestly, Kyle, go back and re-read what I wrote in this thread earlier. I really do wish CK could understand other people's concerns better, so that we can be more friendly to him (if he is in fact not doing things to deliberately annoy others).
Peace,
FF